Category: Uncategorized

“Reading can seriously damage your ignorance.” Anonymous

The above anonymous but humorous quote is a play on warning labels found on food and drug products; while there’s humor in it, there is also an underlying serious issue about the relationship between the decline of reading skills and the resulting ignorance. The failure of US education in basic skills like reading, mathematics and science is more a national security issue than trade. About 90% of American students per the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), are enrolled in public education K-12; clearly, government has a monopoly on education, but despite this obvious quantitative dominance, private education has four times more graduates getting college degrees.

It’s students and their parents who suffer from the corollary of this reality, and that is that taxpayer money for education has failed to educate; consider the fact that the US spends more money per student than any other country, yet many graduate without developing basic reading and writing skills. The refusal to recognize the reality of the failure of government education is a betrayal to our children, grandchildren, and our country; the most logical reaction is that people don’t trust the education of their children to politicians and bureaucrats. There are two alternatives to public education, and they are private school or home schooling; in either case, reading is the most vital intellectual skill to provide for children because it makes all the others possible.

One of the essential skills that come from reading is thinking; as Edmund Burke put it, “Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.” There is another skill needed for reading to lead to thinking and that’s reading comprehension; there’s no way to think about what you read if you don’t understand it. The failure to teach basic reading skills seriously inhibits the student’s comprehension of the one universal language of humanity known as mathematics, which is the essence of all science; the word science itself derives from the Latin “scientia”, meaning knowledge or understanding. Reading also has the psychological effect of enabling students to better understand the world around them, an awareness that reduces confusion and instills curiosity.

Of course this post promotes reading as without it there would be no point in writing it, which leads to the issue of what we read now as adults, assuming we were fortunate as children to have learned this basic life skill; this depends a lot on who we are, and what we do and that is as unique as people and therefore infinitely variable as we may be reading professional journals, recipes, mechanical instructions, shop drawings, newspapers or Marvel comics. The most common reading medium used to be newspapers and magazines, but recent generations have turned to social media, which seldom consists of any meaningful or in-depth discussion of an issue and few answers to important questions, just an endless stream of narratives and slogans.

While TV, movies, podcasts, etc., require audio, visual and language skills, they are not the same as reading but more like listening; reading improves brain function by incorporating various levels of perception, strengthens memory, increases focus, expands vocabulary, and reduces stress, while at the same time informs the reader with perspectives otherwise not apparent; this can be the case with both fiction and non-fiction depending on the talent and depth of the author. At one time not so long ago, books were the main if not only form of disseminating knowledge, which at times created conflicts between the secular and religious elements of society; at various times in history books were banned or even burned as knowledge was the enemy of whomever viewed it as a threat to their power.

It was inevitable that along with the poor level of reading skills in education, we now have among adults a decline across the last two decades of over 40% participation in reading books; fewer than half American adults read at least one book a year. This major shift in a post-literate digital world is not limited to any age, ethnic or racial demographic or educational background, but constitutes a troubling societal atrophying of essential cognitive skills; this has been attributed by various scholars to digital distractions with technology, “programming” our brains to rely on instant stimulation rather than the long-term focus required in reading. One of the cultural manifestations of Western Civilization was its emphasis on literacy; if you want to preserve that culture, then start reading again.

“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Ray Bradbury

“The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.” George Orwell, 1984 

One of Trump’s major campaign promises was that there would be no more “Forever Wars”. It was a potent motivation for many who supported him as the country was both exhausted and depressed after years in Iraq and Afghanistan with no difference in the outcome had we not been involved, similar to the Viet Nam War. The waste of resources, both human and financial, was staggering for all these wars, and were followed by periods of weak economies; none of them were constitutional or had clear reasons or coherent goals.

Despite Trump’s promises, and his denial that the Iran War will be forever, here we are again in a war that was supposed to be over months ago; it has no constitutional legitimacy, but it does have a valid claim to a clear and present danger, with very specific goals. However, as much as we are “winning” militarily, we don’t seem to be getting anywhere; it seems stuck in a cycle of war on and off, on and off… with endless peace negotiations in between that also don’t seem to be getting anywhere. As Will Rogers once observed, “Every war has been preceded by a peace conference. That’s what always starts the next war.”

In the meantime, The Russo-Ukrainian war began in February 2014 and rages on now for more than twelve years. Despite reports that Ukraine has now gotten the upper hand, the fact is that Russia is in effect at war with NATO who has been the main support for Ukraine, which in a way makes Ukraine their proxy. This support has no legitimate basis as Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but rest on the claim of defending democracy against an authoritarian regime, despite the fact that Ukraine is actually ruled by an oligarchy of Neo-Nazis who refuse to hold elections and who control all the media. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn insightfully observed, “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” Further, does anyone really expect Ukraine to ever be able to repay its supporters?

Some clarifications need to be considered, namely The War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the clear and present danger regarding Iran. The former was actually proposed as a way to limit the executive branch’s war powers when in effect it provided a work around for it to do so; there is no constitutional amendment altering the mandate for congressional approval for war. The latter is based on intelligence that Iran was close to acquiring nuclear weapons which it would use against Israel and the West; given Iran’s historical insatiable lust for destruction, we should give that position credibility.

What is lost in all the above is the fact that Americans have yet to recognize that the political narrative of the US as the world’s policeman due to its status as a superpower, a narrative that is bipartisan, is essentially flawed. Here are the words of one of America’s most famous leaders in WWII, General Douglas McArthur: “Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. Indeed, it is a part of the general patterns of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.”

Many people were shocked at McArthur’s statement given his military background and together with other differences he had with Truman, were assumed to be the basis for his dismissal. What should be remembered by this episode and Eisenhower’s warnings regarding the “Military Industrial Complex” are borne out by the fact that both men saw the basis for what we now call “Forever Wars”. The United States has foreign military bases in more than 160 countries, i.e., war is a racket supported by fears created by politicians causing the US to get involved with geopolitical feuds between nations all over the world, few if any of which require the United States to choose sides.

It is an historical fact that many wars are preceded by periods of protectionism with their trade disputes, tariffs, and sanctions; this coupled with some vague moralizing narratives like saving democracy, have led the US to policies contrary to the original American tradition of foreign non-intervention. Whatever we call America’s interests should be defined only as they represent protecting American lives and sovereignty; anything else represents the failed policies that have given us endless wars and a debt greater now than our GDP. We’ve been doing this same thing over and over again and expecting a different result like Einstein’s definition of insanity. Interestingly, while the US regards China as the greatest threat to peace, following our normalized relations with China in 1979, the US has been involved in forever wars while China has not.

In Garet Garrett’s “Hallmarks of Empire”, he lists as the fourth one “a system of satellite nations” with which “for any one of them to involve us in war it is necessary only for the Executive Power in Washington to decide that its defense is somehow essential to the security of the United States.” What is necessary to address these false narratives is for Americans to understand that they are propaganda in service to special interests. What ultimately pays for these wars are taxes, but as Thomas Paine once observed “Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes.” However, those taxes are often hidden in the manipulations of central banking, and in the US that’s the Federal Reserve, which usually results in inflation as the war debt is monetized. Where does this all lead is not certain, but we will certainly pay the price.

“War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end; it has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes.” Thomas Paine

“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.” Robert A. Heinlein

In following the investigations into Anthony Fauci’s handling of the Covid Pandemic, what strikes me the most is the man’s apparent self-deception that he was acting in the best interest of the American people and not himself. Today’s Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing should have been Fauci’s opportunity to, at the very least, provide some level of credible explanations for the chaos, confusion and harm his actions, advice and behavior caused during that critical period.

Instead, his evocation of the 5^th Amendment 111 times in response to questions about documented evidence, despite the blanket pardon provided by President Biden, projected an image of both contempt and deceit. With few exceptions, at a Federal level there’s no legal claim for the 5^th  Amendment if one has such immunity; apparently, the Senate committee will be deliberating that very issue in considering contempt charges against Fauci.

Regardless of the outcomes from these Senate hearings, the pretentious claims of altruistic intentions by not only Fauci, but by all involved with the deceptions and egregious policies enforced during that time, constitute a blatant betrayal of actual science, constitutional rights, and common sense; this destruction of public trust will remain with us as synonymous with the Covid Pandemic itself.

One of the worst practices by the government during this period was the treatment, particularly by Fauci himself, discrediting other scientists and medical professionals who disagreed with them, ignorantly claiming that the “…science is settled!”, which is contrary to the very concept of what science is; it was Thomas Sowell who expressed so well that, “If you are not allowed to question an idea, it is not science but ideology.”

The worst part of Fauci’s deception, and the most damaging documented evidence was his funding of the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite the fact that during the Obama administration such research was banned for the obvious reasons; further, I would think the fact that he manipulated such funding through proxies should constitute a criminal activity, but again he has this blanket pardon. Considering the fact that this laboratory is operated by the military of the CCP, there is the issue of whether or not such funding is treasonous.

Among the excuses offered by the media and those who were part of the administration of that time was that this pandemic was something extraordinary in history; the Bubonic Plague hit humanity at least a dozen known times, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is still with us, the Spanish Flu had far greater mortality, as does EBOLA, and the Antonine Plague (Smallpox and Measles) wiped out a third of the Roman Empire’s population…clearly epidemic diseases are not new to the human race. What’s also not new is the politics of taking advantage of a crisis, what James Madison called “…the rallying cry of the tyrant.”

Another excuse offered about the onerous and failed policies of the administration during COVID was that it created a very complex problem; complexity is one of the primary excuses of failed policies, especially ones that lack sufficient information about the problem itself in order to construct a policy. This was clearly the case with COVID given the fact that even its origins were denied by those that created them, who were also the same people that suppressed information from others who called them out about that, Fauci chief among them. Hopefully, the American people will remember that the critical lesson learned with this sorry episode of our history is in whom to trust.

“One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be and how dangerous it is to trust them.” Thomas Sowell

“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand

The simple truth about economics that many people just don’t get is that it’s independent from the observer, but to ignore the observation will leave you ignorant of reality. Rand was a disciple of Aristotle, and the opening quote is an example of his empiricism that knowledge ultimately derives from perception, which is the source of the concepts that enable the understanding of reality, i.e., perception is not the same as knowledge but ultimately its source.

The fact that socialism has historically been such an abject failure provides empirical knowledge that repeating its implementation but expecting different results is insanity, willful ignorance, or worse, a means to power; expectations are what socialist think and say will happen, reality is what actually does, and when this disparity occurs it usually leads them to less civil if not violent behavior. It is a delusional condition to hold false beliefs about reality despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, and delusions are what drives the greed for power.

While the Democratic Party reels from the rise of socialism within it, we should not ignore some of the socialist policies of the Republican Party, such as Trump’s use of tariff’s, which are nothing more than a tax on the American people, and in this case taxation without representation; I believe there was a revolution about that. This reality is dismissed with the narrative that other countries are taking advantage of the US with their unfair trade practices; this ignores the economic reality of comparative advantage and division of labor, and the obvious harm to Americans by artificially causing higher prices.

The reality is that trade is “The Wealth of Nations” as Adam Smith so clearly illustrated, and free trade creates the most wealth; trade balances are a myth as the less we export and more we import, the more stuff we get for trading less stuff – it’s a “stuff surplus” we need to understand, money is only the medium of exchange, not an end in itself. Whatever we export, we can’t use for ourselves, and that goes for whomever we import from. All countries export whatever they produce in surplus based on some comparative advantage; this varies from country to country, creating a division of labor which provides the efficiency of production that creates wealth; that specialization is what has made human progress possible, and that’s why trade wars are economic killers.

Another example of Republican socialism is the Iranian War; by side stepping the constitution with another use of the War Powers Act, Trump joins the presidential parade with Wilson, FDR, Bush, Obama, and Biden, guilty of the socialistic tendency to expand executive power. I absolutely agree that the Iranian regime is the worst state sponsor of terrorism of our time and should be annihilated, but the issue is how and by whom? We should not allow ourselves the delusions created by narrative addicts rewriting reality just because the lie feels good; truth matters even when it’s inconvenient.

Given the missteps by the Republicans, the Democrats should win the House in the midterms, and perhaps the Senate too, but considering the chaotic, and at times toxic primaries they have had, betting on the outcome is very risky. While it serves various Democratic narratives about how some of the radical and extreme elements of their party do not represent the traditional core “moderate” or “centrist” democrats, the perception by most people who think independently is that the narratives speak to distinctions but not differences. Likewise, we have Republican narratives that tariffs and wars are really for the benefit of the American people, as if we haven’t had enough of death and taxes.

I am not alone in my perception that the left/right spectrum as the paradigm of political parties is poorly conceived and totally inaccurate as to defining policy or concept. The labels are all wrong too. “Liberal” as in the “Enlightenment” of the 18^thC meant liberty in all aspects of life, whereas in current times “Liberal” and “Progressive” really means some variant of socialist thinking and therefore poorly designated. As far as “Conservatives” go, they too believe in coercion when it suits them, but let them all have their self-described titles as they can’t change the perception that it’s all about power, not liberty.

With liberty, you get to choose what you do and say, and that all requires thinking; when you do it objectively, you do it with an open mind, considering the facts rather than your personal feelings or influences from narratives; you rely on your own observations and analysis in order to understand not only the reality of what a given situation is, but what that means in your life. Unfortunately, we are all subjected to the relentless and repetitive droning from politicians and their proxies in media because the motive of power seekers is the promotion of falsehoods as often familiarity is not easily distinguished from the truth; that makes getting to reality harder, but ignoring it still has consequences.

“Some people are puzzled by the fact that so much that is said and done by politicians seems remote. But reality is not what gets politicians elected. Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected. Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them.” Thomas Sowell

“You can’t measure opportunity by outcome.” Thomas Sowell

While this quote may seem to be a self-evident observation of how life is, it’s apparent given the rhetoric of Democratic Socialists that it’s exactly how they measure opportunity; if the outcome doesn’t fit their narrative, then the opportunity is not acceptable. When that happens, the solution is to attack opportunity but never consider how it’s used; it’s as if opportunity is a sin because it doesn’t provide an outcome they deem to be good.

Opportunity is defined simply as “a favorable juncture of circumstances; a good chance for advancement or progress.” (Merriman Webster). This can occur at anytime and anywhere, but to be beneficial it has to be recognized as such and acted on; even then the outcome is not guaranteed because there is always risk. There’s an old baseball saying that “Progress always involves risk. You can’t steal second with your foot on first.” The entrepreneur is someone who sees such opportunities, evaluates as many facts about them as possible, and decides to take on the risks, knowing that the outcome can’t be achieved by doing nothing.

Democratic Socialists avoid facts because it’s easier to sell an idea based on childish fantasies rather than economic realities; proposing free stuff paid for by those whose outcomes they claim make people victims gets more votes from a gullible electorate than proposing policies that create opportunities. The idea that working for a living is an opportunity for a good outcome is a concept alien to the parasitic mind. Success becomes a sin because anyone who took the opportunity to advance their well-being is in some way guilty of an outcome that created an inequality with someone who did not; this is the creed of envy that incites a political movement so contrary to the core principles of a free society.

When I said in previous posts that Karl Marx knew full well that democracy leads to socialism, we have the proof that for once he was right; democracy is all about political competition for power and depends on the ignorance and emotions of voters who lack sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions. It’s logical that the Democratic Socialists propose doing away with the Senate, the Electoral College, and any other institution of our Republic that provides the checks and balances against majoritarianism.

Opportunities are distorted by the corruption of special Interests through the influence of money in politics, lobbying, and cronyism inherent in democracy, allowing the wealthy and special interest groups to manipulate outcomes for their own benefit; the resulting marginalization of the minority gives rise to opposing factions, which in turn leads to polarization. Meritocracy is replaced by the elitism of those who control the majority; this political competition eventually contributes to social unrest.

The perception that the Democratic Party is currently convulsing in the chaos created by their radical elements is misleading as it has always been the case from its roots with Andrew Jackson; it was and is the party of slavery, segregation, regulation, and intervention. As its policies developed in the early 20C, they became increasingly aligned with those of the Socialist Party, whose 1944 presidential candidate Norman Thomas declared that “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

The reality is not that the Democratic Party is in crisis regarding the rise of its socialist faction as it created it and now it has been taken over by them; the question is, are there enough adults in the party to take it back from the spoiled children now in charge? Apparently, the answer is no as the leadership has, at least publicly, endorsed even the most radical primary candidates, including a Nazi in Maine and Communists in NYC; the response from those candidates toward what was considered the current leadership has been to threaten them as they did Hakim Jeffries with the taunt after Mamdani supported representatives won in NYC primaries that they were coming after him next. Remember William Goldings’ “The Lord of the Flies”?

America is considered “The Land of Opportunity”, representing an historical and cultural work ethic that created so much success and wealth; that ethos is disdained by the Democratic Socialists in favor of dependency, and entitlement to the results of a free market, but without the freedoms that created it. The more opportunities there are, the more happy outcomes result, and the reality is that socialism brings misery inherent in dependency.

“I began to suspect that the world is divided not only into the happy and the unhappy, but into those who like happiness, and those who, odd as it seems, really don’t.” C. S. Lewis

“Anything bad I do isn’t my fault, and everything mediocre I do is brilliant, and whatever I say about myself is real! Socialism is the mindset of a child.” Alice Smith

Alice Smith is a writer and social commentator; while there’s no record of Adam Smith having any children, she claims to be his great-great-great-granddaughter. I don’t know enough to comment on that but find that she is a very insightful writer who gets to the essence of an issue with reason and humor, and the opening quote is a good example.

Most legacy and social media report that many people wonder where all this support for socialism suddenly came from; it comes from childish ignorance that parents will not always be there to provide everything on demand, and it was not sudden. This arrested development causes a fear of reality due to the lack of life skills to cope with it. There is a very basic psychological proverb that “Beneath anger is always fear.”, and it is fear that causes an unhealthy attraction, if not addiction, to ideologies, and the more dogmatic the better. Bertrand Russell put it another way, “Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power.”

We should not be surprised about the irrational hatred focused on anyone who disagrees with socialists who refuse to listen to or even allow a contrary idea expressed; the possibility that such ideas might be valid threatens their worldview, and they will hate you for it. It is this hate that exposes the inherent fear in socialism, which is used to justify all sorts of irrational behavior; this emotional immaturity, excluding physical or mental impairment, comes from a lack of education in basic life skills engendering a sense of entitlement, and an inability to handle whatever conflicts with their behavior or beliefs. We would normally see such behavior in a spoiled child…except we’re talking about adults.

Socialism is about a frightened child who doesn’t want to grow up, who wants to replace their parents with the state who will provide free stuff like education, food, shelter and whatever those who have earned these things have.  Assuming this is a matter of education is only partially correct as it goes much deeper than that; this is a social issue of simple old fashion family upbringing, engendering respect, civil behavior, self-reliance, responsibility, accountability and commonsense, none of which comes with a diploma. Thomas Sowell insightfully observed that “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny does not know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”

This basic human societal function we call “raising” children means bringing them out of the ignorance of childhood so they have the life skills to not just survive, but flourish; a society that is built on such principles creates an environment amenable to liberty, so essential for human development, and avoids dependency created by entitlement. It provides children with the tools to be free from the ignorance that creates problems like poverty, conflict, emotional distress, intolerance, envy and often violence; it is no coincidence that these problems are foundational for socialism.

The fundamental issue that socialism has with liberty as Hayek noted is that “Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences. Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.” It is understandable that children who lack these life skills will suffer from self-entitlement, a belief that they are owed whatever privilege and success others may have without the responsibility of earning it; this dependency on emotion rather than reason ignores the reality that coercion is required to have others provide this for them, or even worse to prevent others from achieving more than them.

This childish ideology we call socialism has been around long enough to provide the historical record of consistent failure simply because it was never about the creation of wealth, only the redistribution of it, requiring confiscation of what others have produced; this is its existential conflict with liberty. As we celebrate America’s 250^th anniversary, we need to understand that it’s not about government or politics, but about us as a society, and that at its core society is about family and the children we raise and expect will grow to love and support liberty; this was not something we invented, but something discovered and expressed by many wise people long before we were country.

“Mankind is at its best when it is most free. This will be clear if we grasp the principle of liberty. We must recall that the basic principle is freedom of choice, which saying many have on their lips, but few in their minds.” Dante Alighieri

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain

In Mark Twain’s quote above we have two concepts that are related by their nature as opposites, i.e., patriotism and nationalism. He was always the voice that constructed the controversial in a humorous and insightful way that put people in a frame of mind receptive to his message. That talent is rare, but much needed today, as is the understanding between patriotism and nationalism; by making the government subject to our judgement as to when they deserve our support, he is denying nationalism that gives them a free pass.

The origin of the word patriotism principally comes from the Latin “patēr” meaning “father” and “patricius”, meaning “founding father”, referring to that of a family, community, or country. It was, as were most early Roman republican concepts, a societal one, but later evolved politically as later generations of Romans who were not considered founders, known in Latin as “plebes”, meaning the common people, demanded the same rights and privileges as patricians; it had no economic meaning as many plebs were wealthier than patricians.

What was important about these concepts was the emphasis on the family as the basic societal component with the father as its provider and protector, and the mother as the “materfamilias”, the creator of the family responsible for the nurturing and education of children and management of the household and its social status. These were essential roles in ancient Rome for the survival of the “patria” or homeland, as it developed in what was a very hostile environment. This basic sociological structure was the existential building block for the republic that had no standing army; when faced with threats, there was an assumption of civic duty, a rallying for defense in the spirit of “pietatem” which in English translates as patriotism, kindness, devotion, and loyalty.

These societal concepts come down to us from a republic whose devotion to these principles was not based on what modern societies would consider a constitution as they had none, but rather shared cultural values. While some historians go to great lengths comparing the Roman republic to the American one, there are cultural similarities but few political ones. What is telling is that with the decline of these shared cultural values, the Roman republic devolved into the tyranny of empire. The decline of shared cultural values is something to consider comparatively given the state of a fractured American society and its extreme partisan politics.

Populism arises when shared cultural values are blamed by politicians as the causes of economic or social problems not at all related to those values, but some false claims about them being an unfair system responsible for whatever issues are the subject of their propaganda; when the majority of the people accept such ideas, usually during a time of social or economic stress, it will give rise to nationalism, under which a polarization of political agendas replaces those shared cultural values.

This usually happens over a period of time as is the case in America, starting around the beginning of the 20C with the “Panic of 1907”, a result of government monetary policy causing hyper-speculation and subsequent collapse of markets like the copper industry; this in turn resulted in bank runs and restrictive credit killing investment…sound familiar? It also led to the rise of Woodrow Wilson, a populist progressive Democrat, who advocated for domestic economic reform, like income tax and central banking; he also was a champion of the Southern Democrats in fighting civil rights, instituting segregation of the civil service, and promoting the white supremacy of the KKK. His foreign policies brought the US into the “Great War”, in order to “Save Democracy”; he also supported the draconian Versailles Treaty that eventually gave rise to Hitler and WWII. None of this by any stretch of imagination can be considered patriotism.

Then we have the “Great Depression” during which FDR drastically expanded the federal government’s regulatory intrusion domestically which prolonged it for years and who virtually ruled as dictator with such acts like gold confiscation, and concentration camps for Japanese and Italian Americans. He was succeeded by Truman who incinerated 240K Japanese civilians just to show the Russians we could. LBJ launched the Vietnam War with a false flag and created the family destroying “Great Society”. The Bush “Patriot Act” was the opposite of patriotism. Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” made health care less affordable. Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” didn’t reduce inflation. Trump’s “Epic Fury” was war without constitutional authority. All of these are examples of nationalism.

Some of you may remember Justin Amash, who was a Republican and later Libertarian congressional representative from 2011 to 2021, famously voting for Trump’s impeachment; one of his parting responses to ridicule for his vote was “Nationalism is collectivism and the enemy of liberty and self-determination.” There is more than a correlation with the consequences caused by polarization, indoctrination, and the collapse of the nuclear family, all enemies of patriotism; it is the cause of nationalism, which is not loyalty to the principles of liberty, but blind devotion to whomever is in power and the doctrines that support them. Nationalism is populist in nature, collectivist in policy and action, and repressive if not violent in reaction to opposition.

“Not since the days of the Hitler Youth have young people been subjected to more propaganda on more politically correct issues. At one time, educators boasted that their role was not to teach students what to think but how to think. Today, their role is far too often to teach students what to think on everything from immigration to global warming to the new sacred trinity of ‘race, class and gender.’” Thomas Sowell

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Joseph Stalin

Stalin’s chilling quote about elections is as much a cynical concept as it is an observation of how corrupt regimes conduct elections. This has been the case historically both in the democracy of ancient Athens and the republic of ancient Rome, so there’s little reason to believe that without effective security for the electoral process as can be made and enforced under law, we should discount the possibility of fraud, intimidation or violence in the electoral process.

There’s a reason why we called the time for voting “Election Day”, and that was to limit as much as possible the time for anyone to mess with the electoral process; for the same reason we also organize and designate voting locations called polls and devise strict rules of behavior in and around them. We need mail-in ballots but reserved and limited only for those who have physical, medical or security reasons that prevent them from getting to the polls on the given day, but such ballots need to be posted before the end of election day. Most importantly voting needs to be reserved for US citizens, whether for federal, state or local elections for the simple reason that citizens from any other country have no right to vote for or about anything or anyone in the US because the consequences of the vote become the responsibility of US citizens.

Now as obvious as all the above may seem to reasonable people, we need to wonder about the various irregularities there have been, and still are, especially of late in California with the LA Mayoral and US Senate primaries. The 2024 national elections in India were held in phases for various offices and the results were tabulated the same or following day of the elections; in California, with a population of about 20M people compared to India’s 1.5B people, we only learned the results a week after the elections…and they’re still counting…and worse, still accepting late ballots.

Many polls show that the main reason most eligible voters don’t vote is because they don’t trust the process. Among the reasons given, the main one is distrust in the supervision over counting; the other reasons aren’t any more encouraging, like fraudulent rules made literally to exclude minority parties through the primary process of open ticket rounds, but in which only the top two voted can be on the ballot; this is the rule in California…and in many “Third World” countries. In the LA Mayoral primary, the results were predictable as you now have the choice of voting for a Democrat…or alternatively a Democrat; what happened to diversity and inclusion? Why was there a sudden dump of about 24K mail-in ballots in the Mayoral primary that had only votes for the Democratic candidates while the Republican candidate had been clearly in second place? Regardless of the reason, this does not instill credibility in the outcome.

Then there is the argument about the Electoral College that it does not guarantee that an election will represent the majority of the popular vote; what is missed in such arguments is that the constitution was designed to assure against majoritarianism. In a democracy, the popular vote provides the majority with power but does not provide protection for the rights of the minority, while in a republic such as the US there are mechanisms constructed to do so such as the Electoral College. This system provides a balance of power among smaller and larger states, highly populated urban areas and less populated rural areas; this promotes national unity by giving political candidates the incentive to address the concerns of all in a diverse population, which in turn provides more broad-based support for those elected. It also organizes, simplifies and facilitates the electoral process for a quicker and therefore more credible outcome.

By law only U.S. citizens can vote in federal and state elections, but as of 2024 there are 19 counties and municipalities that not only allow non-citizens to vote, but also to hold public office; this means that those who are not US citizens in those locations have rights equal to those who are. Not only is that blatantly unethical and depending on the location also unconstitutional, but it devalues the essence of being a citizen and adds to the cynicism about voting; couple that with the opposition to voter ID and you have not just the appearance of electoral malpractice, but the reality. When you hear progressives chant about saving democracy, beware, it doesn’t get us to a good place.

“The most important thing to acknowledge about Hitler is that he was a politician. The second most important thing about Hitler is that he was a socialist. The third most important thing to acknowledge about Hitler is that he had a democratic mandate.” Alice Smith

“Things are made subservient to the folk; the socialist puts the folk above everything, and things are only means to an end.” Joseph Goebbels

Goebbels was the Reich Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party and one of Adolf Hitler’s most devoted disciples; he was skilled as an orator and extremely antisemitic. It is important, especially considering current political rhetoric in the US, to understand what the word Nazi actually represents and why it’s used so frequently yet ignorantly in American politics today; there will be many quotes in this post simply because we have so much from the Nazis themselves refuting much of that rhetoric.

The Nazi Party’s formal name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Nazi ideology was racist, nationalist, socialist and totalitarian, important characteristics to understand because it is so easy to forget that, as Hannah Arendt observed, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exist.”

Nazi’s are socialists, and while there is this hauntingly ignorant denial by many progressives that they are not true socialists in a ludicrous attempt to remake them in the image of some capitalist regime, it’s hard to rewrite history when the author of Mein Kampf emphatically stated that, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” The Fuhrer also stated that “Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same thing.” The principal difference between the two, and the reason for Nazi persecution of Marxists, was that Carl Marx was a Jew.

While we have seen the rise of “Democratic Socialism” in various states and cities across America, what is most disturbing is the support of the Democratic Party for Graham Platner in Maine; his denial of knowing his concentration camp tattoo was a Nazi symbol was recently refuted and then admitted to by Platner as something he adopted because his Marine unit were real killers like the Nazi SS. His initial denial in service to the progressive narratives for social justice is so apparently propaganda, that it is a reminder of another of Hitler’s missives that, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Despite this we have Chuck Schumer endorsing Platner because his party needs that senate seat; imagine, a Jew supporting a Nazi, which should inform us that this is nothing more than a power play. The fact that Platner is a self-proclaimed communist is no surprise as a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi. What is really illuminating is that the “Woke” movement is so similar to the Nazi propaganda to brainwash children, rewrite textbooks, politicize teachers, and create scapegoats, usually the Jews, and mass hysteria like climate change or whatever is the catastrophic narrative of the day.

In my post “Confusion and Delusion” I mentioned “menticide”, a word derived from Latin mens (mind) and cidium (killing); it was initially used after WWII regarding the means used by Nazis, Soviets, and other totalitarian regimes. Menticide is the premeditated destruction of an individual’s personality or beliefs through such methods as propaganda, indoctrination, drugs, interrogation and even torture to break resistance to whatever the political narrative is, and the Nazis were adept in all.

Another popular word slung around politically is “lawfare”, the unethical and often illegal use of the judicial system by a political party in power against their opponents. Here again we have the Nazis leading the way with their “Sondergericht”, German for a “Special Court”, to repress resistance to their policies in a seemingly legal way; eventually such courts replaced the existing judiciary leaving no means to legally challenge the regime. The USSR had similar judicial structures in support of Communist Party policies designed to uphold the socialist state’s totalitarian rule. In their essence, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are all forms of the same collectivism, with any distinctions lacking any meaningful differences.

Americans really need to pay more attention to the actions by all political parties and be alert to any signs, both subtle and overt, regarding the means and methods used in promoting their narratives. This is especially true regarding legacy and social media, which has become so unreliable as factual reporting and commentary, alienating people to the extent that they no longer trust or even pay attention; according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in 2022 less than 26% of Americans find those sources credible and suspect purposeful inaccuracies in pursuit of what many in legacy media call “Advocacy Journalism”. It is now an age of “…post-objectivity newsrooms” which literally promotes a “…move beyond accuracy to truth.” The problem with such journalism is who should be the arbiter of the truth when factual accuracy is no longer the priority?

There’s so much more that can be illustrated on this topic such as the growing antisemitism on university campuses and again in the media, a scapegoat methodology extensively practiced by the Nazis; however there is one more practice as noted in the above quote by Hitler regarding the repetition of lies, which I bring up because it is an essential tool of false narratives for us to be aware of as best expressed by  Thomas Sowell:

“Somethings are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed because they have been asserted repeatedly, and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.”

“Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” Epicurus

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who taught that controlling one’s desires and emotions together with virtuous living provided the best way to happiness. He also taught that whether the gods existed or not, they played no part in human action, hence the need for self-sufficiency and responsibility. Were he alive today, Epicurus would be scorned by both liberals and conservatives; the former because his philosophy of self-sufficiency left no room for victimhood, and the later regarding the role of gods.

It’s odd that most religious people can’t accept the fact that there are people who are not religious, and some of whom don’t believe in any deifications; when they encounter an atheist, they appear incredulous if not threatened by the fact that such people don’t believe as they do. What all religious people should find threatening are other religions as historically religious conflicts seldom end peacefully. Regardless of what you believe, or don’t, atheism is no threat to anyone; if you truly believe in a god, remember that historically the human race has had about ten thousand religions and more than 120 religious wars; atheists were not responsible for any of them.

Atheism has been traditionally described as a lack of belief and faith in God, but that in itself is a monotheistic definition of atheism, which actually has nothing to do with religion; nor is it a belief system in and of itself as it is actually the absence of all that. Currently, nearly 70% of the world population are Christian, Islamist, or Hindu; the balance follows Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism or Buddhism. The last two are actually not religions but more philosophies and neither include deification. Comparatively, less than 10% of the world population identifies as atheists.

Substituting stories in place of facts, reasoned analyses and empirical proof is the primary bases of all religions, which asks us to believe based on faith rather than understanding; it requires that we accept that which can’t be proven by abandoning critical thinking for the opposite of logic and reason, or as Mark Twain said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” It’s not so much that faith is wrong, but blind to realities that contradict whatever dogma is believed, creating confusion and stress; you may not like reality, but you ignore it at your risk because the consequences depend on how you deal with it.

Religion has become so much a part of politics that it can be said that politics has become the new religion. It should come as no surprise then that radical religious sects promote theocracy as a political regime; we hear this today both from radical Islamists and from those who claim that the US is a Christian nation, oddly ignoring the constitution’s first amendment. All collectivist authoritarian regimes like the USSR suppressed religion as it was a distraction from their agenda that the state is God. As H. L. Mencken noted, “Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.”

Categorically, atheists are humanists, whose core principles of life are human agency, i.e., the autonomy and responsibility to give meaning, value, and purpose to their own lives, and have the inherent natural right and ability to live ethically without relying on religious or supernatural beliefs. Atheists do not seek to impose their principles on others but simply live by the ethos of peaceful coexistence by respecting human autonomy; this does not mean that they will not engage in civil discourse about religion, but if it does not include reasoned discussion, it will likely go nowhere, or as Christopher Hitchens brilliantly observed, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Often, atheists hear religious people say that they will pray for them, as if they have contracted some fatal disease; such condescension exposes faith as a delusion as Epicurus notes in the opening quote. Consider the anonymous Jewish prisoner of the Nazi death camps who survived and said “If there is a God, he will have to beg my forgiveness.” If there was an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, such evils like disease or war would not exist, but then again, religion would be of little use if that were so.

“Faith is belief without evidence and reason; coincidentally that’s also the definition of delusion.” Richard Dawkins